The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P8 proceedings of the 2nd respondent rejecting their application for permission to construct a building in their property. The application has been rejected for the reason that the property is described as a paddy field in the Revenue records.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the ground on which Ext.P8 has been issued is unsustainable. It is contended that, though the property has been described as paddy field in the Revenue records, at present the same is remaining as fully developed dry land. The petitioners have produced Ext.P6 photographs to show that there are commercial buildings adjacent to the petitioner's property. They have also relied on Ext.P9 judgment of this Court, wherein a similar issue was considered. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P8.
WPC.No.24256/13 -2-
3. Advocate Sri Siby Mathew appears for the respondents.
4. Having considered the rival contentions of the contesting parties, it has to be held that Ext.P8 is unsustainable. It has been held by this Court that it is not the description of a land in the Revenue records that is decisive, but the present state of the land. A perusal of Ext.P8 does not show that the authority has taken any steps to verify the present condition of the land. For the above reasons, Ext.P8 is set aside.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners afresh, after conducting an inspection of the petitioners' land in order to verify whether the land continues to be a paddy field as described in the Revenue records and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders on the application in accordance with law. Appropriate orders as indicated above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-(K.SURENDRA MOHAN) JUDGE.
dsn